General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat's the current temp??
28 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Don't impeach, wait for election to get him out. | |
1 (4%) |
|
Investigate further, then decide on impeachment | |
15 (54%) |
|
Impeach, like ASAP | |
12 (43%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)mnhtnbb
(31,401 posts)but I do not want Dems to rush to a foregone conclusion. I want to see evidence and hear testimony.
My real answer would be something in between choice 2 and 3.
I don't want the House to drag their feet. I want an impeachment inquiry opened asap and a thorough process to happen.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Ive seen this place change so much since I joined.
It makes me sad.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)How do you read that as wanting Trump to continue abusing our country?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)impeach but is strategically not saying that out loud? That would be good news for sure!
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)He is gathering information from all kinds of sources and investigations for a book coming out in August.
He points out how incredibly narrow Mueller's scope was. And most thought he was looking at all crimes trump related.
If none of the other farmed out investigations conclude soon, what can the house do? Try and run a fully concurrent investigation? Or pluck out a piece of something if they ever get his financial records?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)on a regular basis.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)It's naive to assume that if Pelosi hasn't said it, she's not thinking it or if they can't see her doing it, it's not happening.
I've been really surprising to me how many people here think Pelosi is supposed to map out her strategy publicly for their edification.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Wow! Who knew?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)to every Democratic voter, rather than her peers who selected her as their leader, like Speakers before her.
What is it about this Speaker that makes people feel like she's less competent than previous Speakers - despite her being selected by her peers as their leader over and over and over, or can't really be trusted to make the right decisions.....
What is it, I wonder?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But it's a good thing so many people are watching her every move (because everything she's doing and saying, she's doing and saying in public and nothing's going on behind the scenes that they don't know about because, how could it?) and are willing to instruct her in what she's doing wrong and how she should do it differently and better.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Either: "You demand impeachment right now" OR "You want this orange stain to continue abusing our country!"
No other options.
See what you did there?
medyhar
(19 posts)I don't understand why so many people keep conflating "impeaching" with an impeachment inquiry. The inquiry gives extra powers (yes, yes, it does, yes). The decision to actually impeach comes later. One of the choices should be to start an impeachment inquiry now, not just "impeach now".
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)starting.
Claritie Pixie
(2,199 posts)ooky
(8,926 posts)that leads to impeaching the lying bile sac before the 2020 election. And it would not bother me at all if it drips for awhile.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)BigmanPigman
(51,625 posts)You phrased the question and options much better than I could!
htuttle
(23,738 posts)But this week is the week. Impeachment has Big Mo. The wind is at our backs.
Just Do it.
The House needs to drop a treasonous, criminal Trump right into McConnell's lap right around October 2020, but this week is the right week to get things going.
...
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,362 posts)But prosecute the co-conspirators, underlings, enablers, proxies, cohorts, etc.
In other words, his spawn and spawn-in-law.
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
Other than that, we're just peeing into the wind.
.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Judges proceed with subpoena enforcement as quickly or as slowly as they wish. And as we saw last week, judges can move very quickly, even outside of the impeachment process.
For example, in the Deutsche Bank case, Judge Ramos issued a ruling within minutes after oral arguments ended and now the appeal has been fast-tracked on an accelerated calendar.
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
There are so many articles that affirm an Impeachment Investigation would expedite information retrieval.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/05/democrats-call-impeachment-inquiry-against-trump/589996/
.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Why do you say that?
You think that there is anything that DT won't spin? Especially when he feels cornered?
Really?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Mine among them.
Among other things, some assume that an impeachment COULD lead a court to view congressional requests for documents more favorably. That's certainly possible, but there is nothing in the law compelling it and such an outcome is not guaranteed, but is completely up to the discretion of the individual judges ruling on any particular matter.
As evidenced by last week's court decisions, an impeachment inquiry is not necessary to compel a very expedited decision.
And there's no reason to assume that Trump and his minions will be any more likely to comply with a subpoena issued by the Judiciary Committee in an impeachment investigation than they are to comply with a subpoena issued by the same Judiciary Committee - or other Congressional committee - for any other investigation.
More here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12141751